127
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + +
Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct? (view source)
Revision as of 19:59, May 21, 2008
, 19:59, May 21, 2008no edit summary
Ok, let's assume that we are choosing between two supernatural explanations, having decided to go that path. Are you saying that evidence can be used to prove a supernatural explanation, and therefore, to disprove others?
Ok, let's assume that we are choosing between two supernatural explanations, having decided to go that path. Are you saying that evidence can be used to prove a supernatural explanation, and therefore, to disprove others?
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
One day, we will realize that these are really the same things. Imagine that science eventually becomes so advanced that we are able to conclusively show that an event has no natural cause, and that supernatural intervention must have occurred. If we assume that supernatural intervention comes from a sentient God, then this would be tantamount to proof of the existence of God, which would in turn invalidate the need for faith. Conclusion? Either God exists as an entity separate from nature, in which case His existence is provable, or God is part of nature in a way in which we do not yet comprehend. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 15:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)